Resistance Help

00micbro1998

Planter
Joined
Aug 11, 2008
Messages
33
Wondered if any of you have any ideas of how to make a resistance more successful.
Maybe changing the game mechanics? have a bounty on powerblock? maybe giving someone extra back like cash, or higher injury level for attacker and reduced injury level for powerblock? Any ideas, be interesting to hear the ideas you have to make the last month of each round slightly entertaining :)
 

Twigley

Hydroponics Developer
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
2,694
Location
UK
I don't think any more game mechanics need to be put in place to aid resistences now damagng powerblocks are against EULA.

The game mechanics are already in place to take down top allies.
It's the players task to utilise those!
 

Martin

Garden Designer
Super Moderator
Community Operator
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
970
Location
England
I don't think any more game mechanics need to be put in place to aid resistences now damagng powerblocks are against EULA.

The game mechanics are already in place to take down top allies.
It's the players task to utilise those!


Agreed.
 

DarkSider

Tree Surgeon
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
796
There needs to be incentive to attack above (not aimed only at the top alliance). Currently you don't have much of a reason to pick on as strong or stronger allies/companies, the small bounty rarely gives profit and you make alot of enemies that in the long run might make bounty hunting unprofitable for your score (the only aim left with removal of l/f effectiveness and bh ranks).

The point of the game is to feed with the weak and outgrow competition while avoiding any possible damaging conflicts if you have the choice and i personally find it quite unapealing to play.
Look at last round rank 1 in score .. there is nothing epic in getting rank 1 as a inactive player with just gardeners and (not enough :p) harvesters all round long. Rank 1 should be something you fight for till your last breath. Awesome fights, big wins, big looses, stories you can take with you for rounds and rounds.

Game should give worthy rewards attacking strong(er) oponents related to your score or your alliance score. I don't think larger acre gains would be a good reward (at least not alone) since mid-late game excepting the top alliance everybody wants a steady and constant growth beeig capped by the allies stronger than them. So doubling your alliance acres in 1-2 days while in theory is benefical should make you a very fat and juicy target. So the reward should give nonland bonuses like bh/increased productivity/better troops etc.

Why there needs to be a reward and players won't attack above and join resistances for the 'good ol' fun ? Because if you want just fun you'd probably do something else than play a browser game and if you do play bush there's no reason for your alliance to join a resistance .. what's in it for you ? The big allies organizing taking all the credit and saying how much others suck ? What changes for you if one or another alliance switches position up there ? Why would you follow orders from a guy outside your own alliance and put at his disposal the troops you tryed to protect for so long ? Because one guy there yells how this is for fun ? I'd rather get the fun by my own standards instead what others think its fun for them.
 

Matthew

BANNED
Joined
Jan 31, 2009
Messages
209
100% aggree with DS, More incentive to attack on equal troops score or higher would be very much appreciated. I loved the old L/F system and EFF/BH ranks. I accept these how been removed to accomodate for the needs of the majority. But i found those extremely fun to use as they gave me an incentive to remain active and gave me a sense of acheivement.

Deffinately think there is room for more incentive for attacking higher up.
 

harriergirl

Landscape Designer
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
1,200
Location
Hillsville VA, USA
100% aggree with DS, More incentive to attack on equal troops score or higher would be very much appreciated. I loved the old L/F system and EFF/BH ranks. I accept these how been removed to accomodate for the needs of the majority. But i found those extremely fun to use as they gave me an incentive to remain active and gave me a sense of acheivement.

Deffinately think there is room for more incentive for attacking higher up.


I can't add more than this, only that DS and matthew are spot on how I feel about it
 

Azzer

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Dec 13, 2007
Messages
1,215
Yup, hoping to fix the "bottomfeeding isn't very beneficial, 'top-feeding' is" issue with the new FC, so let's see how the initial tests for a new FC go throughout the start of this round, and hopefully we can get it up and running mid-round (I don't normally like to put mechanic changes in mid-round, but I have put out advanced warning that I do intend to put this one in mid-round if/when I get it working nicely).
 
Top